Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I take it you are still delusional to think russia had any real influence on the vote or the outcome. 

 

not any more than anytime before the man you hate won.

 

People made up their minds and voted. She lost.

 

get over it and get on with some form of a life

Still pretending you know what the outcome of the election would have been without Russian interference.  You don't.  Get over it.  The more you claim such knowledge the more you come across as a fool.

 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wasn't replying to the rest of your post. People waste too much space quoting entire posts.

 

Forum rules

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

A useful rule to allow people to narrow down robust arguments to a single out-of-context quote that they think they can address.

[Chomper Higgot]

On the bright side. 

 

Manafort, Flynn and Stone won't be voting any time soon. 

 

And on the real sunny bright side.... Manafort has now been transferred to Riker's Island. 

 

I've said for a long time, Trump needs to get focussed on prison reform. 

 

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

On the bright side. 

 

Manafort, Flynn and Stone won't be voting any time soon. 

 

And on the real sunny bright side.... Manafort has now been transferred to Riker's Island. 

 

I've said for a long time, Trump needs to get focussed on prison reform. 

 

What did Trump say?  "I hire the best people" or something like that?

[Thaifriends]

During Obama, constitution was used like a toilet paper. When lawyers like Obama and his team start to play with laws then we see in return a POTUS like Trump. He is likely to win second term regardless of the showdown by the very angry democrats.☑

Edited June 7, 2019 by Thaifriends

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, Thaifriends said:

During Obama, constitution was used like a toilet paper. When lawyers like Obama and his team start to play with laws then we see in return a POTUS like Trump. He is likely to win second term regardless of the showdown by the very angry democrats.☑

Can you give examples of Obama "used the constitution like a toilet paper"? 

 

BTW:  Very few posts, pro-Trump and anti-Obama, awkward grammar and improper use of indefinite articles---nothing suspicious in the Russian troll sense there.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

I have no idea what your talking about . I was  responding to #342 "And evidence indicates that Vlad, once confronted by Obama, did reduce the interference.  However now that Vlad's candidate won, we can expect much more of that kind of interference".

I responded that the prior admin. did very little to change interference. Its so obvious that for years during Obama, Vlad kept it up!. Now the bias media  neglects to mention this!  And puts the blame on Mr. Trump ! What's Trump doin ! The same as every POTUS

 

 

Yes, I read your post, thanks.

 

Let's try again - the standing position of pro-Trump posters is that he's an improvement over past Presidents, and specifically his predecessor. Saying that Obama failed to address Russian efforts doesn't explain whether Trump's dealing with the issue is better, similar or worse.

 

So far, Trump alternated between claiming that there was no Russian intervention effort, or that such efforts were ineffective. I hope you understand the two propositions are different, because your own posts often echo the President's views on this matter.

 

I don't think Obama did a good job dealing with the Russian intervention issue, but also that the timing in which it became more pressing was problematic - opening that can of worms just before the elections could have been interpreted as trying to effect the outcome. With hindsight, it probably should have been addressed earlier, or even near the elections, regardless of optics. I would be very surprised if the timing wasn't calculated by the Russian side. Well played, that.

 

[elmrfudd]

37 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You've gone from complaining about how long the bill is, with provisions to improve ethics and eliminate gerrymandering, to focusing on one perceived flaw.  Why didn't you focus on your perceived flaw to being with?

 

The penalty for illegal voting is severe, the reward is hypothetical to non-existent, and the evidence it is a problem is nonresistant.   I know Republicans want to suppress voter turnout by anguishing over non-existent fraud, but you should at least give some real examples of such fraud if you want to convince the majority.

ONE perceived flaw?

 

what bill are you reading?

[elmrfudd]

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

53 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I take it you are still delusional to think russia had any real influence on the vote or the outcome. 

 

not any more than anytime before the man you hate won.

 

People made up their minds and voted. She lost.

 

get over it and get on with some form of a life

Still pretending you know what the outcome of the election would have been without Russian interference.  You don't.  Get over it.  The more you claim such knowledge the more you come across as a fool.

 

well Bruce, just keep hanging on to that desperate "stolen" election mantra for all its worth. 

the longer you do the sillier you look

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How many people actually read any of the troll farm output, and how many of them changed their vote because of it? No one knows the answer to that.

I don't use face<deleted>, and surely most people have better things to do with their time than read stupid posts about Trump on it. 

Probably most people that voted for Trump actually work for a living, and don't have time to waste reading fake news on a stupid web site.

 

So...

 

You don't know how many people were exposed to these messages.

You don't know how many of them changed their minds.

You don't use FB yourself.

 

You assume most people have better things to do with their time then reading posts about Trump - on a topic dealing with Trump.

 

You assume most Trump voters don't have time to waste on "fake news" and "stupid web site" - topics on TVF paint a different picture.

 

Seems like half of the things you base your views on aren't quite solid, and the other half plain nonsense (if amusing, this time).

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

well Bruce, just keep hanging on to that desperate "stolen" election mantra for all its worth. 

the longer you do the sillier you look

 

I think the one turning it into a "mantra" is yourself. Did anyone else use that term?

[elmrfudd]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

9 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

well Bruce, just keep hanging on to that desperate "stolen" election mantra for all its worth. 

the longer you do the sillier you look

 

I think the one turning it into a "mantra" is yourself. Did anyone else use that term?

well, 2 1/2 years of repeating the same desperate fallacy about an election being stolen would be a mantra,

or a cult perhaps.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

"He won.  Fair and square, as much as anyone else has in the past."

 

I take it that you have abandoned your irrational claim that Russian interference had no affect on the outcome of the election.  Now you are equating the interference in the 2016 election that reached tens of millions of Americans with interference in past elections that had little or no reach.  I suppose that's progress.

 

Regarding fantasies about hacking the election, neither I nor anyone I know of have disputed the result of the 2016 election.  Horrible as it is, Trump is the President.  However the failure of Trump and his supporters to endorse measures to prevent future hacking is a serious threat to our democracy.  Don't you think elections should be defended from hostile foreign powers?

 

"Regarding fantasies about hacking the election, neither I nor anyone I know of have disputed the result of the 2016 election."

 

I kinda remember there was a candidate who preemptively claimed elections were rigged and such. Then a whole lot of bogus claims about illegal voting. Same guy who supported publishing rivals' emails, while expressing warm feelings toward Russia and Wikileaks.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

well, 2 1/2 years of repeating the same desperate fallacy about an election being stolen would be a mantra,

or a cult perhaps.

 

Again, other than you, who's using it on this topic?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the present attacks on Trump far exceed the normal political discourse, and are breaking the USA.

Has any other president been subject to such excessive and long continual attacks?

The Dems should be careful of what they wish for, as if the next president is a Democrat, they can expect a repeat of the same on them.

 

While impeachment is obviously the Dem's aim, chances of success are slim to zero, so what is the point, other than causing more chaos?

However, I'm comforted to remember that should Trump be impeached and removed, Pence will make the Dems regret that they did so. I'm almost tempted to hope Trump is impeached just to see Pence in action.

 

I get the feeling that many that want Trump impeached actually believe that HRC will take over, because they don't understand that the VP does.

 

Right. Nothing whatsoever to do with Trump's own style of "discourse", politics or policies. He's just a poor POTUS defending himself against the nasty, nasty media. Was there any other President who was so busy picking petty fights with anyone not adulating him? Was there any other President with similarly troubled relationship facts, reality and truth?

 

Yeah, but do go on about "exceeding normal political discourse" and "breaking the USA" - things you seem to find the media responsible for, and totally unrelated to the President.

 

I get the feeling that you're making things up about beliefs regarding HRC taking over.

[elmrfudd]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

8 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

well, 2 1/2 years of repeating the same desperate fallacy about an election being stolen would be a mantra,

or a cult perhaps.

 

Again, other than you, who's using it on this topic?

you mean like making the unfounded assumption russia changed the election outcome?

 

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

you mean like making the unfounded assumption russia changed the election outcome?

 

 

You mean like making it sound like that was the claim? Because I think most not-over-the-top posters talk about effect, without fully committing to what results would have been otherwise. That said, with the narrow margins involved, it's not all that far fetched as you try and paint it.

 

But "stolen"? I think that's you're term.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

well Bruce, just keep hanging on to that desperate "stolen" election mantra for all its worth. 

the longer you do the sillier you look

Well elmr, keep misstating my clearly stated positions and attributing words to me that I never posted.  I never said the election was stolen.

 

I assume you can't argue with my actual posts so you invent posts you can argue with and attribute them to me.

 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

ONE perceived flaw?

 

what bill are you reading?

You focused on one perceived flaw in the post I replied to.  If you have other issues be free to post them. 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

you mean like making the unfounded assumption russia changed the election outcome?

 

You seem to be retreating into your own paranoia.  Show me the post by anyone who said Russia stole the election.

[elmrfudd]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

You focused on one perceived flaw in the post I replied to.  If you have other issues be free to post them. 

i posted several sections bruce

[elmrfudd]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

You seem to be retreating into your own paranoia.  Show me the post by anyone who said Russia stole the election.

 

so when you say that Russian interference effected the outcome, this is not claiming the election result would have been different?

 

or are you saying it would not have changed the outcome? which is it?

 

"As I stated, rational people understand there is no way to know the outcome of the election if there had been no interference.  The fact that you think otherwise says all we need to know about your rationality."

[elmrfudd]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

14 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

you mean like making the unfounded assumption russia changed the election outcome?

 

 

You mean like making it sound like that was the claim? Because I think most not-over-the-top posters talk about effect, without fully committing to what results would have been otherwise. That said, with the narrow margins involved, it's not all that far fetched as you try and paint it.

 

But "stolen"? I think that's you're term.

right, so you think it would have been a different outcome then? 

[bristolboy]

19 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

right, so you think it would have been a different outcome then? 

Trump supporters seemed to think the Russian theft of DNC documents was a significant boost for Trump. Come to think of it, so did Trump.

[mtls2005]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

You seem to be retreating into your own paranoia.

Frustration over getting outdone by a wabbit and duck repeatedly.

 

14 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

you mean like making the unfounded assumption russia changed the election outcome?

Hardly unfounded, certainly uninvestigated in depth. ~77,000 votes in three states swung the election. The trump campaign's data geeks (Brad Parscale, now 2020 chairman) bragged about how they "manipulated" the election in the days after. They quickly stopped that.

 

Robert S. Mueller, May 29, 2019

 

"Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is with interference in the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury by an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization Wikileaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

 

At the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election."

 

I wouldn't expect you to read this or the Muller Report, your head would explode.

 

 

[heybruce]

27 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

i posted several sections bruce

When you addressed several sections, post #401, I addressed several sections in post #403.  When you stated the entire bill was written to reduce identity verification, post #410, I addressed that.  You seem to have trouble with numbers.

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

 

so when you say that Russian interference effected the outcome, this is not claiming the election result would have been different?

 

or are you saying it would not have changed the outcome? which is it?

 

"As I stated, rational people understand there is no way to know the outcome of the election if there had been no interference.  The fact that you think otherwise says all we need to know about your rationality."

Seriously?  I never said Russian interference definitely affected the election outcome.  I said, as repeated above, "there is no way to know the outcome of the election if there had been no interference".  Is the idea beyond your comprehension?

[bristolboy]

There's an excellent article in Slate laying out in detail how Barr lied repeatedly.

Barr Is Lying About Mueller’s Evidence

The attorney general’s falsehoods make his verdict in the Russia investigation worthless.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/barr-lying-mueller-report.html

Edited June 8, 2019 by bristolboy

[mtls2005]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There's an excellent article in Slate laying out in detail how Mueller Barr lied repeatedly.

Typo?

 

 

There is no question that Barr is lying - he has a horrible tell: his lips move. Old lawyer joke.

 

The question is why does he do it?

 

 "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

 

 

Barr is gently massaging the president's fragile psyche, the facts, the law and the table.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by mtls2005

[mogandave]

 
"Regarding fantasies about hacking the election, neither I nor anyone I know of have disputed the result of the 2016 election."
 
I kinda remember there was a candidate who preemptively claimed elections were rigged and such. Then a whole lot of bogus claims about illegal voting. Same guy who supported publishing rivals' emails, while expressing warm feelings toward Russia and Wikileaks.

But but but....